Yeah, of course it’s cheaper to not send divers down. All I’m saying is cheaper cheaper doesn’t mean cheap. And my larger point is that it’s probably not cheap enough, not least because they’re planning for a 20 year part replacement cycle on metal bits exposed to high-pressure seawater and that just doesn’t seem plausible to me.

I think that this depends on how much this system can really "produce".
In a 20 years cycle (ok it is theoretical), it does not seems too hard to overcome the maintenance costs, even this high, assuming the production is high enough, which is to be demostrated.

[–] Libra@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

Nope, miss it. My bad ;-)

Fair enough.

I think that this depends on how much this system can really “produce”.

True. And I did just recently learn that power prices per kWh in California are about double what I'm used to here in Texas, so maybe it's more viable in that market. This just seems like a more complicated, more involved, more demanding version of pumping water into/out of a reservoir on a hill which we already have several examples of that are working great (there are more in the UK) without requiring complex and expensive maintenance and without subjecting pumps and turbines to highly corrosive salt water. I guess pressure in the ocean is easier to come by than hills big enough to create reservoirs on, but..